Woods v. Carey

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation684 F.3d 934
Docket Number09–16113.,Nos. 09–15548,s. 09–15548
PartiesEarnest Cassell WOODS, II, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; T. Dickenson; Cervantes, Defendants–Appellees. Earnest Cassell Woods, II, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Tom L. Carey, Warden; T. Dickenson, Defendants, and Santos Cervantes, Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date06 July 2012

684 F.3d 934

Earnest Cassell WOODS, II, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Tom L. CAREY, Warden; T. Dickenson; Cervantes, Defendants–Appellees.

Earnest Cassell Woods, II, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Tom L. Carey, Warden; T. Dickenson, Defendants,
and
Santos Cervantes, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 09–15548, 09–16113.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 18, 2012.
Filed July 6, 2012.


[684 F.3d 935]


Erica Griffith (argued) and Jeffrey T. Renz, Missoula, MO, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Jennifer Marquez (argued), Sacramento, CA, for the defendant-appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:04–cv–01225–LKK–GGH.
Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, JOHN T. NOONAN, and MARY H. MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

We hold in this case that Rand and Wyatt notices must be served concurrently with motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment so that pro se prisoner plaintiffs will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of them in order to oppose those motions. Notices served at a time when defendants have not yet filed motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment (and may never file such motions) do not sufficiently serve that purpose.

INTRODUCTION

Earnest Cassell Woods, formerly an inmate at California State Prison, Solano, sued Warden Tom Carey and Appeals Coordinator Santos Cervantes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his medical needs due to the improper denial of two grievance forms seeking dental care.1 First, the district court granted Carey's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Woods failed to connect him to the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights.2 Subsequently, it granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but only as to one of the two grievances.3 After proceeding to trial on the remaining grievance, Woods obtained a jury verdict against Cervantes, the only remaining defendant. Woods appeals the district court's grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of Carey as well as the motion to dismiss in favor of both defendants as to the purportedly unexhausted grievance. He asserts that he was not provided fair notice of the requirements necessary in order to oppose the motions. 4 We agree that the notice provided by the district court, which preceded the filing of

[684 F.3d 936]

the motion for summary judgment by over a year and the motion to dismiss by more than two years, did not provide fair notice to Woods, a pro se prisoner plaintiff. We hold that notice required under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc), and Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2003), must be provided to pro se prisoner plaintiffs at the time the defendants' motions are filed.

BACKGROUND

While incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, Woods filed a request to receive dental care to fix his broken partial dentures on October 16, 2002. He received an acknowledgment from the prison's dental services department informing him that he was placed on the wait list to receive dental care, that the expected waiting time was several months, and that he would be contacted when it was his turn. After a year had passed without his receiving any treatment to address this issue or any further notification from dental services, Woods filed a grievance form on November 27, 2003, seeking immediate care. He was informed by dental services that he had been removed from the wait list. Woods continued to attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a formal level appeal. On December 3, 2003, Woods filed another grievance, again seeking immediate dental care, this time due to a broken tooth caused by his attempt to eat with the broken partial denture. He was again informed that his name was not on the list to receive dental care and instructed to make a formal request to be placed on the list. Woods filed a formal level appeal of this grievance as well. Both grievances were screened out at the formal-appeal level by Cervantes.

Woods filed a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Cervantes's responses repeatedly and incorrectly screened out his grievance forms, prevented him from properly exhausting his claims and impeded his access to necessary dental treatment. Woods alleged that Cervantes's intentional interference with his attempts to receive dental care amounted to a violation of his Eighth Amendment right. Woods also named Carey as a party, and alleged that the warden was also responsible for preventing him from obtaining the necessary treatment.

On October 14, 2004, shortly after Woods filed his amended complaint, the district court issued an order directing service on the defendants by the United States Marshal. Included in this five-page order was a notice to the plaintiff advising him of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment, or a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under Rand, 154 F.3d 952, and Wyatt, 315 F.3d 1108, respectively. Neither motion had been made at the time. The notice specified that Woods was required to present affidavits, declarations, or other forms of evidence to defeat any such motions, and that any affidavits or declarations submitted must be signed. It also informed Woods that failure to defeat either motion would result in the termination of his suit.

More than a year later, in December 2005, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was accompanied by a sworn declaration, made under penalty of perjury, by Carey stating that between August 15, 2002 and September 22, 2004, he “never had any conversations with plaintiff regarding delay of dental treatment or the [grievance] appeals process ... [and] never received any complaints from plaintiff regarding the ...

[684 F.3d 937]

appeals process.” In response, Woods filed his opposition, which did not conform with the requirements outlined in the Rand notice. As a result, his opposition was stricken, and the magistrate judge reviewing the motion relied only on Woods' verified complaint and attached exhibits. Woods did not submit a copy of a letter that he had in his possession that he had written to Carey, and was marked as received by him on March 4, 2003. In the letter, Woods explained that he was “trying everything that [he could] do to exhaust [his] state remedies so that someone will hear [his] appeal in the court system if not in the state Department of Corrections,” and complained that Cervantes was improperly screening out his grievances and thereby preventing him from exhausting his appeals. The letter also stated that Woods was aware that “Cervantes has been violating the rights of other African Americans while filing appeals,” and that Carey had received “numerous other complaints,” and asked that the warden “pay attention to” this conduct. It was signed and dated by Carey with the notation “To: S. Cervantes. For your review,” and was stamped “Received” on March 5, 2003 by the Solano Appeals Office. A copy of this letter was not produced by Woods until September, 2008, when he included it as a proposed trial exhibit, two years after summary judgment had been granted for Carey. In granting summary judgment to Carey in his individual capacity on September 28, 2006, the court adopted the report and recommendations of the magistrate, which found that Woods had failed to support his claim against Carey with specific allegations. It also specifically credited Carey's statement that he was “unaware of plaintiff's allegations.” On the first day of trial in February 2009, Woods learned, apparently for the first time, that Carey had been dismissed as a party. Woods's claim against Cervantes survived the summary judgment motion.5 The court concluded that Woods's condition constituted a serious dental need, and that it was clearly established that he had a right to adequate dental care and that improperly preventing him from obtaining that care could amount to a constitutional violation.

In December, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90–93, 126 S.Ct. 2378. In addition to filing an opposition to the defendants' motion, Woods submitted a series of objections and a request for judicial notice. All of Woods's filings, with the exception of his initial opposition, were stricken by the district court as improper. In adopting the recommendations of the magistrate, the district court found with respect to the grievance filed on November 23, 2003, that Woods had followed the proper procedure and it was Cervantes's attempts to give him “the run around” that prevented him from successfully exhausting the administrative process. It allowed Woods's claim based on this grievance to go forward, but dismissed the December 3, 2003 grievance after finding that Woods failed to timely submit his formal-level appeal.

After his thirteen motions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2293 cases
  • Norwood v. Cate, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00330-AWI-SAB (PC)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • March 15, 2013
    ...issued an order permitting Plaintiff opportunity to withdraw his opposition and file an amended opposition in light of Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012). (ECF No. 75.) On November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 76.) On......
  • Garnica v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • August 13, 2013
    ...(DOC). ECF No. 39. Defendants served Plaintiff with a Pro Se Prisoner Dispositive Motion Notice consistent with Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935, 940–41 (9th Cir.2012) and in accordance with the holding of Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962–63 (9th Cir.1998). ECF No. 40. The Court granted ......
  • Grenning v. Klemme
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington
    • July 22, 2014
    ...of Material Facts and the requisite form Notice to the Plaintiff (ECF No. 58) of the requirements for opposing the Motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41 (9th Cir.2012) ; Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960–61 (9th Cir.1998). Defendants also moved for a protective order and stay of dis......
  • Grenning v. Klemme, CV–12–0600–JLQ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington
    • July 22, 2014
    ...of Material Facts and the requisite form Notice to the Plaintiff (ECF No. 58) of the requirements for opposing the Motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939–41 (9th Cir.2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960–61 (9th Cir.1998). Defendants also moved for a protective order and stay of disc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Prisoners' Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...804 (8th Cir. 2002) (right-of-access claim when prison regulation restricted prisoner-to-prisoner legal communication); Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2012) (right-of-access claim when courts failed to provide pro se litigant with notice of requirements needed to defeat di......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT